JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and have perused the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Regional Committee, whereby the election of respondent No. 5, the Committee of Management has been recognized for a term of five years with effect from the date of election held in the year 2005. 3. This case has a chequered history and several writ petitions have been filed earlier, which have been decided from time to time. 4. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case are that one election of the Committee of Management is said to be held by the respondent No. 5 on 21.5.2000, whereas the parallel election of the Committee of Management is said to be held by the petitioner on 25.5.2000. The election of respondent No. 5 was recognized and the signatures of the Manager, Rakesh Mohan Mishra were duly attested. The same was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition, which was dismissed. The matter kept pending and several other writ petitions relating to the same issue were also filed and by a common judgment passed on 20.3.2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of all the writ petitions and directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh elections in accordance with law. However, the said order was challenged in Special Appeal and by the judgment and order dated 03.9.2003, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the Regional Committee should decide the dispute in accordance with law, as it was pointed out that the term of the Committee of Management had been extended from three years to five years and thus the election held in the year 2000 would be valid till the year 2005. 5. In response thereto, the Regional Joint Director of Education had passed an order dated 8.1.2004 attesting the signatures of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the term of the Committee of Management, which was to be five years, had till then not come to an end. 5. In response thereto, the Regional Joint Director of Education had passed an order dated 8.1.2004 attesting the signatures of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the term of the Committee of Management, which was to be five years, had till then not come to an end. The said order of the Joint Director of Education was challenged in a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court after observing that the Joint Director of Education had passed the order on 8.1.2004 after hearing both the parties and also after holding that the term of the Committee of Management was extended for five years and will thus be coming to an end in May, 2005. In its judgment, the Court had observed that “It is not denied that the term of the Committee of Management was extended for five years and will come to an end in May, 2005. The order dated 4.8.2003 passed by Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow, by which a direction was issued that the extension of term will be applicable only to the Committee of Management elected after the expiry of the term of the Committee which has proposed the amendment, is not a Government Order as it has been issued by the Director of Education (Secondary) Lucknow, and in any case it is an administrative order which cannot operate retrospectively.” The Writ Court thus dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 8.1.2004. The said order of the Writ Court was challenged in Special Appeal, which was also dismissed on 28.11.2006 and relying also a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 85 , the Division Bench held that civil suit was the appropriate remedy for the petitioner. 6. After the expiry of the five years’ term, fresh elections of the Committee of Management were held in May, 2005. The matter of recognition of the said election remained pending, in which the petitioner had also filed objections and then by the impugned order dated 30th August, 2008, the recognition of the Committee of Management of the petitioner has been granted. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 7. The submission of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is in three folds. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 7. The submission of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is in three folds. Firstly, that the order dated 1.8.2002 by which the term of the Committee of Management has been accepted to be five years instead of three years, was challenged by the petitioner by filing a representation on 18.6.2003 and, as such, without deciding the said representation, the term of the Committee of Management could not be held to be five years and it ought to have been treated as ended after three years. It is secondly contended by Sri Arvind Srivastava that recognition given to the election held in the year 2005 was not in terms of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners held parallel election in the year 2003 and 2006, on which no orders were passed by the Joint Director of Education and papers have been returned to the Society/Committee of Management, and without the same having been resolved, no decision could have been taken with regard to the election held by the respondent No. 5 in May, 2005. 8. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in view of the fact that the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 8.1.2004 has accepted that the term of the Committee of Management is five years. The same has also been confirmed by the Writ Court by the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 2472 of 2004, against which the appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed. 9. As regards the second contention, no material irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner with regard to the election of the Committee of Management. Further, what is submitted is that the respondent No. 5, the Manager of Committee of Management, is not even a Member of the Society, and as such he is a trespasser and not entitled to be elected as Manager or hold the election of the Committee of Management. It is also submitted that the date of election as contended by the respondent No. 5 was 21.5.2005, whereas the Joint Director of Education has held that the election was held on 8.5.2005, which was duly recognized by the Regional Committee on 20.5.2005. It is also submitted that the date of election as contended by the respondent No. 5 was 21.5.2005, whereas the Joint Director of Education has held that the election was held on 8.5.2005, which was duly recognized by the Regional Committee on 20.5.2005. In my view, these are disputed questions of fact that as to whether the elections were held on a particular date or not, and whether the respondent No. 5 is the Member of the Society or not, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, as evidence would have to be adduced by the parties for deciding such issues. The petitioner was earlier also given an opportunity by the Writ Court to file a civil suit and the Division Bench also after relying the Full Bench decision of this Court has held that civil suit would be the appropriate remedy. The petitioner has chosen not to approach the Civil Court but has again come up in writ jurisdiction, which is not the proper forum for deciding such issues. If petitioner is so advised, he shall have liberty to challenge the order of the Joint Director by filing civil suit. 10. As regards the third contention of the petitioner that no orders have been passed on the parallel elections held by the petitioner in the year 2003 and 2006, suffice it to say that the term of the Committee of Management has already been held to be five years and as such there was no occasion for holding parallel elections after three years of the earlier election, by which time the term had not even expired. As such, the said contention of the petitioner also does not have force. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. ————